ask_couchbase_docs

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe, read-only operation, so the description does not need to re-prove that. It adds a useful scope boundary ('Not for direct cluster operations') but does not disclose extra behavioral details such as response format or failure modes. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two short sentences plus one exclusion clause, with no filler. The primary action and supported scope are front-loaded, and every sentence contributes useful routing information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter tool with a detailed schema and an output schema available, the description is complete: it states scope, gives explicit usage guidance, and excludes the one class of out-of-scope requests. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to decide whether and how to invoke it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the question parameter is already well-described with guidance to make it self-contained and include product/version/language context. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but with full schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action ('Search Couchbase documentation') and a clear resource, then enumerates the scope of supported topics (products, features, SDKs, services, tutorials, examples). It is immediately obvious what this tool does and where it differs from cluster-operation tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Use this tool for all Couchbase how-to, conceptual, and reference questions. Not for direct cluster operations' provides an explicit when-to-use and an explicit when-not-to-use. An agent can route questions correctly without needing sibling-tool descriptions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.